amazing.. when proven wrong, you just resort to changing your argument and pretending that was your argument from jump..
sorry, your argument was ""Gingrich is for mandates but he's not representative on that issue. "
after having it pointed out to you that you were oh so wrong, you've decided your argument is now.."I had already said there hadn't been Republican support for an individual mandate since 1994,"
I think it's fair to say you lied about that.
And you are incorrect. The GOP wasn't for mandates, then suddenly Obama got behind them and the Republicans tossed it overboard. Gingrich is for mandates, but he's not representative on that issue. When were Republicans supporting a mandate last? 1994? The idea that Republicans supported mandates until Obama got behind them is ridiculous. Really going off the rails there...
I didn't add that later. That was part of my original statement. Now, did you just mess up, make a mistake and thought I added that comment later, or are you purposely lying about it?
even still, you were proven wrong with the 2 introductions of the Wyden bill, which did have a mandate as explained..and most importantly did have GOP support..
That is not a 'tax'.. that is a penalty for not getting insured, no different from Obama's 'mandate'...
Odd that you are calling the Wyden bill a 'tax' but you argue Obama's same 'mandate' isn't.. just more proof that you're hyper-partisan and hypocritical..
and BTW, the wydenn bill did have GOP support both times it was intro'd as shown.. my position,which has never changed, was also correct.. the GOP liked the mandate until Obama, and that was proven by the bills listed that had GOP support up until Obama used it and then no GOP support..
as for the site, can you prove it's biased? then who cares if it holds the same status and TP.. the definition of a 501 (c)(3) is
who gives a shit..all that means is it has tax-exemptions... none of that proves hyper-partisan.. you just don't like the site because it proves your original argument and this new one, wrong... well, too bad.. facts hurt like that.
you will get no apology since you haven't been proven correct on any argument you've made.. your points have been weighed,measured and found lacking...whether that be the original one that you've now back away from since you found yourself in error, or the second one you've now adopted in some desperate attempt to get some points for knowing something about this issue..
The CBO said it was a tax.
Payment for minimum coverage - Universal coverage is partially
enforced through a requirement that payment for the lowest-cost
premium is part of an individual’s tax liability, and withholding tables
are adjusted to reflect this liability, except that certain low-income
individuals are eligible for premium assistance. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9184/05-01-HealthCare-Letter.pdfSo as far as me being correct and you being incorrect, and let me add deceitful this time, third time's the charm. So are you ready to apoligize?
